Genius, Creativity 
 and the Mainstream  

Note: Some articles require the free Acrobat Reader to view. 

A Field Guide to Skepticism by Dean Radin

I am attacked by two very opposite sects – the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me – calling me "the frogs’ dancing-master." Yet I know that I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature. 
-– Luigi Galvani 

This chapter does not argue against skepticism. On the contrary, it demonstrates that critical thinking is a double-edged sword: It must be applied to any claim, including the claims of skeptics. [...]

Atom Tinkerer's Paradise by Peter Weiss

Maybe it was too big—or too small—a leap for his colleagues to fathom. Whatever the reason, the hostility of fellow surface scientists was unvarnished when James K. Gimzewski spoke at a 1985 surface-physics meeting about viewing a single molecule with a new type of instrument—the scanning tunneling microscope.

"They laughed me off the stage. It was new and they hated it," he says. [...]

The Blind Eye of Science - Excerpt 

In 1819, Ernst Chladni reflected back on his struggles for the recognition of meteorites. While the Enlightenment, the 18th century intellectual movement that examined accepted doctrines of the time, had brought certain benefits, he felt it also brought with it certain intellectual problems. Now scientists "thought it necessary to throw away or reject as error anything that did not conform to a self-constructed model." The very success of scientific experiment and theory had led to a misplaced confidence that *what was real was already within the circle of science.* What was outside, therefore, what did not conform to scientists' theories, could be dismissed by invoking scientific authority and by ignoring or ridiculing observations not supported by it. [...]

Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas by J. Sacherman 

Abstract: American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues. [...]

Extraordinary Claims? Move the Goalposts! by Patrick Huyghe

If you've heard it once, no doubt you've heard it a million times. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That old saw has become the skeptic's number one attack against claims that threaten to overturn their cherished applecarts. [...]

Genius versus Academia  by Christopher Michael Langan 

Although academia is widely regarded as the natural setting for genius, there are some obvious problems with this characterization. For one thing, while academia needs a steady supply of geniuses to keep it on track, genius exists independently of academia. For another, academia functions in a way antithetical to certain crucial ingredients of genius. These facts betray a potentially costly disjunction of public perception and factual reality. [...]

Independent Scientists As An Endagered Species by Mae-Wan Ho

Independent scientists are a dying breed. All over the world, they are suffering persecution from an ‘academic-industrial complex’ bent on promoting corporate science and technologies that endanger lives and destroy the planet. We desperately need independent scientists if only to protect us from the failures, to anticipate the dangers and to repair the damages done. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho calls on civil society and government to take concrete measures to protect independent scientists, and to support independent science that benefit society as a whole rather than big corporations. [...]

The Lynching of Bill Dembski by Fred Heeren

Mathematician William Dembski stands accused of bringing shame upon a major university. Not only that, say his colleagues, he has managed to disgrace the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists from distant universities wrote letters to the editors of his university newspaper, and biologists spoke up through the surrounding city papers, telling the public why this man must be stopped. When Dembski organized an academic conference, one incensed professor from another state sent long e-mails to the scheduled speakers, seeking to discredit Dembski and convincing one famed philosopher to cancel. The faculty senate of his own Baylor University voted 26 to 2 to recommend that his research center be dismantled. Eight members of Baylor's science departments wrote Congress about the dangers of Dembski's project, and several briefings on the issues were made before a bipartisan group of congressional members and staff. 

So you're wondering: What kind of new and evil science is William Dembski practicing? Is he cloning half-humans without souls to create cheap labor? Several Baylor students interviewed for this article couldn't pinpoint the exact deed, but knew it was immoral because they heard that it had something to do with an evil use of the human genome project. What Dembski has actually done hardly seems nefarious. As a scientist with twin Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy, Dembski has set about developing mathematical methods for detecting intelligent design, should it be discernible, in nature. That's all. What's more, he has submitted his work to the scientific scrutiny of his peers. So why are all these professors so hysterical? [...]

Myths of Skepticism by Michael D. Sofka

What is a skeptic? If you ask a skeptic you're likely to get an answer that involves science, rising tides of nonsense and debunking the paranormal. If you ask a UFOlogist, or a parapsychologist, you are likely to hear something about negative naysayers and closed minded critics. [...]

New Ideas in Science by Thomas Gold

Abstract: The pace of scientific work continues to accelerate, but the question is whether the pace of discovery will continue to accelerate. If we were driving in the wrong direction - in the direction where no new ideas can be accepted - then even if scientific work goes on, the progress would be stifled. This is not to suggest that we are in quite such a disastrous position, but on the other hand, all is not well. [...]

The New Thought Police - Suppressing Dissent in Science by Mae-Wan Ho and Jonathan Mathews

"...as corporations are growing bigger and more powerful, so the suppression of scientific dissent is becoming more sophisticated, insidious and extensive. As the scientific and the political mainstream have both come to identify with corporate aims, so their established power structures are brought to bear on squashing scientific dissent and engineering consensus."

"... Our academic institutions have given up all pretence of being citadels of higher learning and disinterested enquiry into the nature of things; least of all, of being guardians of the public good. The corporate take over of science is the greatest threat to our survival and the survival of our planet. It must be resisted and fought at every level." [...]

Non-Academics Get Nobel Cold Shoulder: The Missing Nobelist

The Missing Nobelist is about the snub that Robert Noyce and other non-academic (private sector) researchers have gotten and will continue to get from the Swedish Academy's Nobel Prize committee. What greater discovery has there been over the past 50 years other than the microprocessor that Mr. Noyce helped to develop?

Probably the greatest inventor of the past century is the likewise academically ignored Nikola Tesla, who invented the AC electric motor, the radio (not Marconi, as most believe), the electric turbine, and numerous other inventions that we would be lost without. He fought Thomas Edison over making AC the electrical standard, as Edison wanted the inefficient DC, which would have kept us from having the technological revolution we had this past century. [...]

On Materialism as Science Dogma by Neal Grossman

This essay focuses on the Near Death Experience (NDE) as evidence that science has -- to its detriment -- become a dogmatic belief system wedded to reductionist materialism rather than being a neutral, objective method for investigating reality of any sort. One could effectively substitute the three letters "UFO" for "NDE." The advantage of dealing with NDE is that there is no doubt whatsoever as to the existence of the phenomeon; the interpretation, of course, being another matter. [...]

On Pseudo-Skepticism by Marcello Truzzi

Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have gained a false advantage by usurping that label. [...]

The Plight of the Obscure Innovator in Science by Moti Nissani

Abstract: The extent of resistance to original contributions of obscure scientists is controversial. One view holds that such resistance is rare, and hence that it requires little study or remediation. A second view holds that, although not widespread, such resistance happens often enough to merit study and reform. A third view holds that this resistance is common, that it constitutes the single most formidable block to scientific advances, and that its disturbing regularity calls for a partial restructuring of the modern scientific enterprise. After documenting this crucial controversy and arguing that it cannot be resolved through citation analysis, this note tests one implication of the third view, viz., that even a cursory search of the historical and biographical literature should reveal many cases of bitter struggles for publication and recognition besides the ones which are customarily cited in discussions of this subject. Such a search has been carried out, yielding over fifty names of scientists and scholars who, by all counts, made decisive contributions to their respective fields, but who nonetheless had to struggle to have their results published or recognized. In most instances the original sources from which these cases have been culled are directly quoted, thereby showing that most historians and biographers of science tend to view the struggles they describe as rare and as owing to the peculiar circumstance of the case in question. Most likely, such struggles are traceable to many interdependent sociological, political, and psychological causes. Instead of providing a comprehensive causal analysis, this note highlights one psychological factor which may merit greater attention from social science theorists. Given these diverse roadblocks against obscure innovators, the surprising thing may well be that some unrenowned innovators, in science at least, have escaped the struggle, not that so many haven't. This note urges a systematic historical study to estimate the incidence of resistance. If such a survey shows that obscurity plus originality often lead to temporary or permanent oblivion, the case for structural reforms in science will become immeasurably stronger than it is now.  [...]

Publication Bias: The "File-Drawer" Problem in Scientific Inference by Jeffrey D. Scargle

Abstract: Publication bias arises whenever the probability that a study is published depends on the statistical significance of its results. This bias, often called the file-drawer effect because the unpublished results are imagined to be tucked away in researchers’ file cabinets, is a potentially severe impediment to combining the statistical results of studies collected from the literature. With almost any reasonable quantitative model for publication bias, only a small number of studies lost in the file drawer will produce a significant
bias. This result contradicts the well-known fail-safe file-drawer (FSFD) method for setting limits on the potential harm of publication bias, widely used in social, medical, and psychic research. This method incorrectly treats the file drawer as unbiased and almost always misestimates the seriousness of publication bias. A large body of not only psychic research, but medical and social science studies as well, has mistakenly relied on this method to validate claimed discoveries. Statistical combination can be trusted only if it is known with certainty that all studies that have been carried out are included. Such certainty is virtually impossible to achieve in literature surveys. [...]

Reflections on the Reception of Unconventional Ideas in Science by Marcello Truzzi

Charles Sanders Peirce required that the first and primary obligation of any philosopher or scientist is to do nothing that would block inquiry. [...]

The Role of Doubt in Science by Richard Feynman

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. [...]

Sasquatch and Scientists: Reporting Scientific Anomalies by Ron Westrum

This article explores the dilemma which confronts the observer of an apparent scientific anomaly: should he report the phenomenon and face possible ridicule or should he refrain from reporting and so question the reliability of his own mind or senses? The author examines how the response of the public and the media to observations or obvious hoaxes, which resemble the observer's experience, may either inhibit or encourage reporting. He concludes by drawing a parallel between public and scientific attitudes toward Sasquatch and U.F.O. phenomena and the reluctance of established science and popular wisdom in late eighteenth- century France to accept the celestial origin of meteorites until confronted by an undeniable, widely witnessed sighting. [...]

Science of the Subjective by Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne

Abstract: Over the greater portion of its long scholarly history, the particular form of human observation, reasoning, and technical deployment we properly term "science" has relied at least as much on subjective experience and inspiration as it has on objective experiments and theories. Only over the past few centuries has subjectivity been progressively excluded from the practice of science, leaving an essentially secular analytical paradigm. Quite recently, however, a compounding constellation of newly inexplicable physical evidence, coupled with a growing scholarly interest in the nature and capability of human consciousness, are beginning to suggest that this sterilization of science may have been excessive and could ultimately limit its epistemological reach and cultural relevance. In particular, an array of demonstrable consciousness-related anomalous physical phenomena, a persistent pattern of biological and medical anomalies, systematic studies of mind/brain relationships and the mechanics of human creativity, and a burgeoning catalogue of human factors effects within contemporary information processing technologies, all display empirical correlations with subjective aspects that greatly complicate, and in many cases preclude, their comprehension on strictly objective grounds. However, any disciplined re-admission of subjective elements into rigorous scientific methodology will hinge on the precision with which they can be defined, measured, and represented, and on the resilience of established scientific techniques to their inclusion. For example, any neo-subjective science, while retaining the logical rigor, empirical/theoretical dialogue, and cultural purpose of its rigidly objective predecessor, would have the following requirements: acknowledgment of a proactive role for human consciousness; more explicit and profound use of interdisciplinary metaphors; more generous interpretations of measurability, replicability, and resonance; a reduction of ontological aspirations; and an overarching teleological causality. Most importantly, the subjective and objective aspects of this holistic science would have to stand in mutually respectful and constructive complementarity to one another if the composite discipline were to fulfill itself and its role in society. [...]

Scientific Belief as Obedience to Authority

What should we do if we caught science in a bold, black lie? [...]

Stamping Out Dissent by Brian Martin

Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views are simply suppressed... [...]

Strategies for Dissenting Scientists by Brian Martin

Abstract — Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. A scientific dissenter should first realize that science is a system of power as well as of knowledge, in which interest groups play a key role and insiders have an extra advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. If dissenters gain some recognition or outside support, they may be attacked. In the face of such obstacles, several strategies are available, which include mimicking science, aiming at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a different audience, exposing suppression of dissent, and building a social movement. [...]

What Has Science Come To? by Halton Arp

Fifty years ago, one could hardly avoid falling into a heated argument on whether science and religion were compatible. Today, that is a dead subject. As a scientist, I just assumed people had come to realize that science is what works and religion was based on myths and guesses. But now an astonishing realization has begun to dawn on me—religion has prevailed! Science has become religion! [...]

Zen ... and the Art of Debunkery by Daniel Drasin

Is science is supposed to be a purely hardnosed enterprise with little patience for "expanded" notions of reality? [...]

Articles on Genius and Creativity  

Genius Quotes 

Genius Hall of Vindication

Discussions on Genius and Intelligence

NOEON Newsletter